Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Probing a Heavy Dark $Z$ Boson at Multi-TeV Muon Colliders: Leveraging the Optimized Recoil Mass Technique

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A multi-TeV muon collider could spot heavy dark $Z$ bosons down to kinetic mixing of a few parts in a thousand.

desk verdict A sensible and useful MuC sensitivity study whose optimized recoil-mass windows are a legitimate refinement, but the benchmark tables are internally inconsistent and the near-threshold reach neglects beam energy spread, so the headline O(10^-3) numbers are optimistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02224 v1 pith:AGPIU3RA submitted 2025-01-04 hep-ph hep-ex

Kingman Cheung , Jinheung Kim , Soojin Lee , Prasenjit Sanyal , Jeonghyeon Song This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords darkZbosonkineticmixingmuoncolliderrecoilmassassociatedproductionsectorbeam-inducedbackgroundbeyondtheStandardModel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a multi-TeV muon collider is the right machine to search for a heavy dark $Z$ boson, the gauge boson of a dark U(1) sector that couples to Standard Model particles through kinetic mixing. The production mode that carries the argument is associated radiation, $\mu^+\mu^- \to Z_{\rm D}\gamma$, because the dark $Z$ mass is then fixed by the collision energy and the measured photon energy through the recoil relation $m_{\rm recoil}^2 = s - 2\sqrt{s}\, E_\gamma$. Rather than applying one fixed mass window, the authors tune the $m_{\rm recoil}$ and $m_{ee}$ windows to the detector resolution expected at each assumed mass, which lets them exploit the better photon resolution that comes with the softer photons radiated by heavier $Z_{\rm D}$ bosons. Combining the dijet and $e^+e^-$ decay channels, they claim kinetic-mixing sensitivities $\varepsilon \approx 2\text{--}4\times 10^{-3}$ for masses within about 100 GeV of the beam energy at 3, 6, and 10 TeV muon colliders. If correct, that reach would substantially exceed the projected sensitivity of a 100 TeV proton-proton collider for heavy $Z_{\rm D}$ masses, and the same recoil technique would still work if the $Z_{\rm D}$ decays invisibly into dark-sector states.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the recoil-mass identity $m_{\rm recoil}^2 = s - 2\sqrt{s}\, E_\gamma$, which converts a single photon energy measurement into a dark-$Z$ mass without any assumption about how the $Z_{\rm D}$ decays. The machinery that carries the analysis is the pair of optimized mass windows in Eq. (17), with widths $\Delta m_{\rm recoil}$ and $\Delta m_{ee}$ extracted from Gaussian fits to detector-level distributions for each $M_{Z_{\rm D}}$ and $\sqrt{s}$. These widths encode the energy-dependent photon and electron resolutions: soft photons from heavy $Z_{\rm D}$ bosons are measured with better relative precision, so the $m_{\rm recoil}$ window can be made very narrow exactly where the cross section is largest, while the $m_{ee}$ window is tightest for lighter $Z_{\rm D}$ bosons whose electron pairs are less energetic. The complementarity of the two windows is what lets a single analysis stay sensitive across the full kinematically allowed mass range.

What would settle it

Measure the photon recoil-mass resolution on a known standard candle at a 3 TeV muon collider, for example $\mu^+\mu^- \to Z\gamma$ with the $Z$ produced against a photon of about 300 GeV, and compare the fitted Gaussian width of $m_{\rm recoil}$ with the $\Delta m_{\rm recoil} \approx 1$--$2$ GeV used for $M_{Z_{\rm D}}$ near 2.7 TeV; a width several times larger would rule out the claimed $\varepsilon \approx 3.9\times 10^{-3}$, while a width at or below that level would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that optimized, mass-dependent selection turns near-threshold production into a discovery channel for a heavy dark $Z$. The signal is a photon recoiling against the $Z_{\rm D}$; the standard kinematic identity $m_{\rm recoil}^2 = s - 2\sqrt{s}\, E_\gamma$ fixes $M_{Z_{\rm D}}$ from the photon energy alone. The optimized selections are $|m_{\rm recoil} - M_{Z_{\rm D}}| < 2\Delta m_{\rm recoil}$ and $|m_{ee} - M_{Z_{\rm D}}| < 2\Delta m_{ee}$, where $\Delta m_{\rm recoil}$ and $\Delta m_{ee}$ are the standard deviations of Gaussian fits to detector-level $m_{\rm recoil}$ and $m_{ee}$ distributions for each mass hypothesis. Because a heavier $Z_{\rm D}$ leaves less energy to the photon, the photon energy resolution is better and $\Delta m_{\rm recoil}$ narrows to roughly a few GeV near the kinematic limit; because a lighter $Z_{\rm D}$ produces a lower-energy electron pair, the $m_{ee}$ window is tighter in the low-mass regime. Using the $m_{ee}$ selection below about $\sqrt{s}/2$ and the $m_{\rm recoil}$ selection above it, and combining the $jjX$ and $e^+e^-$ channels, the authors obtain $2\sigma$ sensitivities $\varepsilon = 3.9\times 10^{-3}$ at $\sqrt{s} = 3$ TeV, $\varepsilon = 2.7\times 10^{-3}$ at 6 TeV, and $\varepsilon = 2.1\times 10^{-3}$ at 10 TeV for $M_{Z_{\rm D}} = \sqrt{s} - 100$ GeV, and they argue this substantially surpasses the reach of a 100 TeV proton-proton collider at such masses.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted near-threshold sensitivities rest on the assumed energy resolution for soft photons, including a calorimeter constant term of about 1%, and on neglecting beam-energy spread and beamstrahlung; if the real resolution is worse or the beam smears $\sqrt{s}$ by several GeV, the optimized windows must widen and the $O(10^{-3})$ reach shrinks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a $Z_{\rm D}$ within about 100 GeV of the beam energy, a 3, 6, or 10 TeV muon collider could exclude or discover kinetic mixing at the level of a few parts in a thousand, beyond the projected 100 TeV proton-proton reach at such masses.
  • The photon-recoil measurement does not require knowing the $Z_{\rm D}$ decay products, so the same search strategy remains valid if the dark $Z$ decays into invisible dark-sector states.
  • The optimal selection switches from $m_{ee}$ to $m_{\rm recoil}$ near $M_{Z_{\rm D}} \approx \sqrt{s}/2$, so a single fixed mass window would sacrifice sensitivity on one side or the other.
  • Each collision energy is most sensitive near its own kinematic limit, so a sequence of muon colliders at 3, 6, and 10 TeV would extend heavy dark-$Z$ coverage in stages, with the highest energy giving the smallest $\varepsilon$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The near-threshold $\varepsilon$ values depend on the calorimeter resolution assumed in the simulation and on neglecting beam-energy spread; if a real muon beam smears $\sqrt{s}$ by several GeV at multi-TeV energies, the recoil peaks broaden and the quoted $O(10^{-3})$ sensitivities would degrade. This is an inference from the simulation setup, not a claim tested in the paper.
  • The optimized-window logic ought to transfer to any resonance produced with an associated photon at a lepton collider, such as a heavy Higgs boson or a generic $Z'$, so the same tuning procedure could be applied to other searches.
  • The cut-based analysis likely underestimates what a full spectral fit could do: using the whole $m_{\rm recoil}$ shape rather than a single $\pm 2\Delta$ window would extract more information from the same events, and a binned-likelihood version is a natural next step.
  • Because beam-induced backgrounds are handled only through pseudorapidity and $p_T$ cuts, an experimental study with full background overlay would be needed to confirm the quoted acceptance, especially in the forward region.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a search for a heavy dark Z boson (Z_D) with mass above 1 TeV at multi-TeV muon colliders, using the associated production process μ+μ− → Z_D γ followed by Z_D → jjX or Z_D → e+e−. The central idea is to replace fixed mass windows by M_ZD-dependent cuts on the photon recoil mass m_recoil and the e+e− invariant mass m_ee, with the widths Δm_recoil and Δm_ee extracted from Gaussian fits to Delphes-simulated signal samples. The authors present cut-flow tables, significance estimates, and 2σ/5σ sensitivity contours in the (M_ZD, ε) plane for 3, 6, and 10 TeV muon colliders, concluding that their optimized recoil-mass technique reaches ε ~ 2–4×10^-3 near the kinematic limit and substantially surpasses the projected reach of a 100 TeV proton-proton collider at large M_ZD.

Significance. The physics motivation and the main mechanism are attractive: the recoil-mass relation m_recoil² = s − 2√s E_γ is exact at Born level, and exploiting the better photon energy resolution for softer photons is a genuinely useful idea. The paper provides a reproducible-looking simulation chain (MadGraph, Pythia, Delphes with the MuonColliderDet card), explicit background lists, cut-flow tables, and sensitivity projections, which are concrete assets. The central claim is nevertheless numerically anchored in the quoted Δm_recoil values and in the absence of machine-level smearing; if those are corrected, the absolute significances and the ε-reach contours would change, even though the qualitative trend of improved sensitivity at high M_ZD is likely to survive.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III–IV, Eq. (16), Tables II and III] The quoted Δm_recoil values are not consistent with the paper’s own photon energy resolution model. For √s = 3 TeV and M_ZD = 2.7 TeV, the associated photon has Eγ = (s − M²)/(2√s) = 285 GeV; Eq. (16) with a = 0.156 and b = 0.01 gives σ_E/E ≈ 1.36%, σ_E ≈ 3.9 GeV, and Δm_recoil ≈ (√s/M) σ_E ≈ 4.3 GeV, not the 1.66 GeV quoted in Table II. Similarly, for √s = 10 TeV and M_ZD = 9.7 TeV, Eq. (16) gives Δm_recoil ≈ 4.1 GeV, not the 1.77 GeV quoted in Table III. The quoted values correspond instead to Eγ ≈ 100 GeV, i.e., M_ZD ≈ √s − 100 GeV, rather than to the masses in the cut-flow tables. Because Eq. (17) sets the window as ±2Δm_recoil, the Table II/III significances do not follow from the stated resolution model. Please either reconcile the fitted widths with Eq. (16) by explaining how the Delphes reconstruction achieves a resolution roughly 2.4 times better than the card parameterization, or correct the widths and rerun the cut-flow and sensitivity computations.
  2. [§IV, Eq. (17), Fig. 4] The near-threshold reach, which produces the headline ε values of 2–4×10^-3, depends on Δm_recoil values of order 1.7–1.9 GeV at M_ZD close to √s. In the simulations these widths come only from the Delphes photon energy resolution; the analysis does not include the beam energy spread or beamstrahlung of a realistic multi-TeV muon collider. A momentum spread of order σ_p/p ~ 10^-3 smears √s by about 3 GeV at 3 TeV and 10 GeV at 10 TeV, and near threshold dm_recoil/d√s ≈ M/√s ≈ 1, so this machine-level smearing is as large as or larger than the quoted detector widths. Please quantify the effect of the beam energy spread on Δm_recoil and on the optimized mass windows; this is essential for the ε ~ O(10^-3) sensitivity claims in Section IV.D.
  3. [§IV.B–IV.D, Eq. (17)] The widths Δm_recoil and Δm_ee are obtained from Gaussian fits to the same detector-level signal samples on which the mass-window cuts are then applied, and the multiplier 2 in Eq. (17) is not justified by an independent scan or by a signal-plus-background fit. This is an in-sample optimization: it does not invalidate the qualitative mechanism, but it makes the absolute significances and the derived ε contours optimistic in a way that is not quantified. Please report how the significance and the reach vary with the window multiplier (for example 1.5Δ, 2Δ, 2.5Δ) and, ideally, set the widths using a procedure that does not reuse the signal sample under test.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV.D, Fig. 8] The comparison with the HL-LHC and 100 TeV pp collider uses the 2σ sensitivity curves from Ref. [30], while the MuC results are shown as both 2σ and 5σ contours; please state explicitly that the hadron-collider curves are the appropriate 2σ or 95% CL limits, so the comparison is apples-to-apples.
  2. [§IV.A, Table I] The background cross sections are given without systematic uncertainties; a short discussion of the dominant theoretical and detector-level uncertainties (scale choices, jet energy scale, lepton veto efficiency) would help assess the robustness of the quoted significances.
  3. [§III, Fig. 2 and §IV.B, Figs. 5–6] The figure captions do not identify which curve corresponds to which M_ZD value; please add legends or explicit labels to Figures 2, 5, and 6.
  4. [§III, Fig. 3 and fit procedure] The Gaussian fit to the asymmetric m_ee distribution is restricted to a ±25% window around the true mass; please specify how the fitted width changes with the choice of this window and whether the quoted Δm_ee values are sensitive to it.
  5. [Abstract and §I] The phrase “substantially surpassing the reach of a 100 TeV proton-proton collider” is used for the heavy-mass regime; in the lighter-mass region the MuC does not outperform the hadron colliders, and the abstract could state this qualification more precisely.
  6. [Various] There are minor typographical and formatting issues, including inconsistent capitalization of “Delphes”/“DELPHES” and extra spacing in “F ASER/F ASER2”; these should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimized mass-window widths are extracted from signal Monte Carlo and applied in a standard cut-and-count sensitivity estimate; the ε reach is not defined by those fitted widths. The one self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain: Eq. (15) defines m_recoil from kinematic conservation; Eq. (16) is the detector energy resolution taken from the external MuonColliderDet.tcl Delphes card; ε-independent signal and background samples are simulated with MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes. Section III states that Δm_recoil and Δm_ee are set to the standard deviations of Gaussian fits to the detector-level signal distributions, and Eq. (17) uses those widths in the mass-window cuts. The final significances in Tables II, III, and Figure 8 are then computed from surviving signal and background event counts via Eq. (20), so the output (ε sensitivity contours) is not equal to the fitted widths by construction; it is a cut-and-count extrapolation. No equation reduces the result to its inputs, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The only self-citation is Ref. [19] (Cheung and Ouseph), used in the introduction for forward-experiment dark-photon constraints; it is not load-bearing. Applying fitted widths to the same signal sample is in-sample optimization, a mild statistical caveat but not circularity under the definitions. Separately, the quoted Δm_recoil values in Tables II/III appear inconsistent with Eq. (16) at the stated benchmark masses (e.g., at √s=3 TeV, M=2.7 TeV, Eq. (16) gives σ_E≈3.9 GeV and Δm_recoil≈4.3 GeV, versus the quoted 1.66 GeV); this is an internal consistency/reproducibility concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced: the Z_D is the standard kinetically mixed dark Z from prior literature, and the paper only explores a new parameter regime (M_ZD in [1,10] TeV, epsilon below 0.1) and new search channels at a muon collider. The count of free parameters and assumptions is therefore dominated by modeling choices: the fitted resolution widths, the hand-chosen 2*Delta window factor, the assumed calorimeter constant b = 0.01, the neglect of beam energy spread, and the treatment of beam-induced background via hard pT cuts. These choices directly shape the quoted epsilon values.

free parameters (3)
  • Mass window multiplier = 2 (the factor in |m - M_ZD| < 2*Delta)
    The quoted sensitivities depend directly on this hand-chosen factor. No scan over 1*Delta, 2*Delta, or 3*Delta windows is shown, and the Delta values themselves are fitted to signal-only Monte Carlo, so the optimization is in-sample.
  • Photon energy resolution constant term b = 0.01 (assumed in the Delphes MuonColliderDet.tcl card, used in Eq. (16))
    Near M_ZD = sqrt(s) the photon is soft and the 1% constant term dominates DeltaE_gamma, setting Delta_m_recoil of 1-2 GeV that drives the headline reach. A real calorimeter with b = 0.03 would weaken the quoted epsilon sensitivity. See Section III and Figure 4.
  • Gaussian fit window for the asymmetric m_ee distribution = plus or minus 25% around the true M_ZD
    Section III, footnote 2. The choice of window around the truth determines Delta_m_ee for heavy M_ZD, where the distribution is asymmetric with a low-side tail; a different window changes the fitted width and hence the m_ee cut.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The kinetically mixed dark U(1) model with the couplings and mass mixing of Eqs. (1)-(10)
    The entire analysis inherits this model from the cited prior literature (Okun, Holdom, Fayet, Fabbrichesi et al., refs. [3-6]); the paper does not derive or test it.
  • domain assumption Small mass-ratio expansion delta_m = m_Z,0 / M_D,0 << 1 for M_ZD in [1,10] TeV (Eq. (3))
    The simplified Z_D couplings g_hat^f_ZD = (T3f - Qf) * t_W + O(delta_m^2) and the branching ratios of Eq. (12) rely on this expansion being valid over the whole quoted mass range.
  • domain assumption The recoil mass formula m_recoil^2 = s - 2*sqrt(s)*E_gamma (Eq. (15)) assumes mono-energetic beams with no beam energy spread, no beamstrahlung, and no extra ISR in the signal definition
    Beam energy spread is never mentioned in the paper. At the level of Delta_m_recoil of 1-2 GeV near the kinematic endpoint, a 0.1% beam energy spread (3-10 GeV of sqrt(s) smearing) is a comparable or dominant smearing source.
  • domain assumption The Delphes MuonColliderDet.tcl detector response, with the energy resolution of Eq. (16) and acceptance |eta| < 2.5, faithfully represents a future muon collider detector
    Used for all signal and background distributions. Beam-induced background is not simulated; the analysis assumes the pT > 100 GeV leading-object cut renders BIB negligible (Section IV A).
  • domain assumption Z_D decays exclusively into Standard Model particles for the main results (Section II and Eq. (12))
    Stated assumption for comparability with LHC searches; the invisible-decay scenario is discussed only qualitatively in the conclusions.
  • standard math Asymptotic likelihood formula of Cowan et al. (Eq. (20)) and Gaussian quadrature combination S_tot = sqrt(S^2_jjX + S^2_ee)
    Valid in the large-sample limit. Near the kinematic endpoint the m_recoil window contains O(10) background events, where the authors assert without showing numbers that the Poisson/Fisher combination differs by only a few percent (Section IV D).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing a Heavy Dark $Z$ Boson at Multi-TeV Muon Colliders: Leveraging the Optimized Recoil Mass Technique." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AGPIU3RA

@misc{pith2026250102224,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing a Heavy Dark $Z$ Boson at Multi-TeV Muon Colliders: Leveraging the Optimized Recoil Mass Technique},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AGPIU3RA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02224}
}
abstract

We investigate the discovery potential of multi-TeV muon colliders for a heavy dark $Z$ boson ($Z_{\rm D}$) with a mass above 1 TeV through the associated production channel $\mu^+\mu^- \to Z_{\rm D}\gamma$. This process enables precise $M_{Z_{\rm D}}$ reconstruction using the photon recoil mass ($m_{\rm recoil}$). Focusing on the $Z_{\rm D} \to jjX$ and $Z_{\rm D} \to e^+e^-$ decay modes, we present strategies for achieving high sensitivity to the kinetic mixing parameter $\varepsilon$ at 3, 6, and 10 TeV muon colliders with integrated luminosities of 1, 4, and 10 ab$^{-1}$ respectively, assuming $Z_{\rm D}$ decays exclusively into Standard Model particles. A key innovation is our optimized implementation of $M_{Z_{\rm D}}$-dependent cuts on $m_{\rm recoil}$, which accounts for the energy-dependent detector response. For heavier $Z_{\rm D}$, the associated photon becomes less energetic, leading to better photon energy resolution and thus enabling more stringent $m_{\rm recoil}$ cuts. This approach enhances $\varepsilon$ sensitivity for heavier $Z_{\rm D}$. Conversely, for lighter $Z_{\rm D}$, the lower-energy electron pair from $Z_{\rm D} \to e^+e^-$ enables tighter cuts on the invariant mass of the electron pair ($m_{ee}$), providing better sensitivity in the lighter mass regime. Combining these complementary $m_{\rm recoil}$- and $m_{ee}$-based selections with both $jjX$ and $e^+e^-$ channels, we achieve $\varepsilon$ sensitivity down to $O\left(10^{-3}\right)$ as $M_{Z_{\rm D}}$ approaches $\sqrt{s}$, substantially surpassing the reach of a 100 TeV proton-proton collider. Even if $Z_{\rm D}$ decays into dark-sector particles, the recoil mass method remains effective, establishing muon colliders as powerful facilities for exploring heavy dark sectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02224 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cross sections of heavy dark Z production as a function of MZD through µ +µ − → ZDγ (red), µ +µ − → ZDνν¯ (blue), and µ +µ − → ZDµ +µ − (green) at MuCs with √ s = 3 TeV (left) and √ s = 10 TeV (right). The cross sections are normalized by ε 2 . Motivated by these considerations, we examine three primary production channels: µ +µ − → ZDγ, (14) µ +µ − → ZDνν, ¯ µ +µ − → ZDµ +µ −, where ν includes all three flavors [P… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalized distributions of the recoil mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized distributions of the mee invariant mass for µ +µ − → ZDγ with MZD = 6 TeV at the 10 TeV MuC. mass. Collectively, these effects cause the mee distribution to shift toward lower values and broaden with increasing MZD . These contrasting behaviors of the mrecoil and mee distributions emphasize the importance of adopting different mass window cuts for each distribution, tailored to MZD : |mrecoil − MZD | < 2∆… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ∆mrecoil and ∆mee, the standard deviations obtained from Gaussian fits to the mrecoil and mee distributions, as a function of MZD at the 3 TeV, 6 TeV, and 10 TeV MuC. emerge: ∆mrecoil decreases with increasing MZD , as discussed before. For a given MZD , higher √ s yie…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of the recoil mass of the photon, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distributions of the invariant mass of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 2σ sensitivity contours for detecting a dark Z boson at different MuC energies through the processes µ +µ − → ZD(→ jjX)γ (left) and µ +µ − → ZD(→ e +e −)γ (right). The results for the 3 TeV MuC with Ltot = 1 ab−1 , 6 TeV MuC with Ltot = 4 ab−1 , and 10 TeV MuC with Lto…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 2σ (solid lines) and 5σ (dashed lines) sensitivity contours for detecting a dark Z boson at different MuC energies, combining the processes µ +µ − → ZD(→ jjX)γ and µ +µ − → ZD(→ e +e −)γ. The results for the 3 TeV MuC with Ltot = 1 ab−1 , 6 TeV with Ltot = 4 ab−1 , and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Constraining the heavy leptophilic neutral gauge bosons through the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-$, $W^\pm\to\ell^\pm\nu_\ell$, and $h\to\ell^+\ell^-$ decays

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    One-loop corrections to W/Z/h leptonic widths exclude heavy leptophilic Z' regions (M ≳ O(1) TeV, g' ≳ 0.4) beyond LEP-2 and neutrino-trident limits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1–29, [1207.7214]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC , Phys

    CMS collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30–61, [ 1207.7235]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    L. B. Okun, LIMITS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS: PARAPHOTONS? , Sov. Phys. JETP 56 (1982) 502

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts , Phys

    B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts , Phys. Lett. B 166 (1986) 196–198

    1986

  5. [5]

    Fayet, Extra U(1)’s and New Forces , Nucl

    P. Fayet, Extra U(1)’s and New Forces , Nucl. Phys. B 347 (1990) 743–768

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli and G. Lanfranchi, The Dark Photon , 2005.01515

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig and S. D. McDermott, Revisiting Supernova 1987A Constraints on Dark Photons, JHEP 01 (2017) 107, [ 1611.03864]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Bross, M

    A. Bross, M. Crisler, S. H. Pordes, J. Volk, S. Errede and J. Wrbanek, A Search for Shortlived Particles Produced in an Electron Beam Dump , Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 2942–2945

    work page 1991

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    S. N. Gninenko, Constraints on sub-GeV hidden sector gauge bosons from a search for heavy neutrino decays, Phys. Lett. B 713 (2012) 244–248, [ 1204.3583]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Blumlein and J

    J. Blumlein and J. Brunner, New Exclusion Limits for Dark Gauge Forces from Beam-Dump Data, Phys. Lett. B 701 (2011) 155–159, [ 1104.2747]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bl¨ umlein and J

    J. Bl¨ umlein and J. Brunner,New Exclusion Limits on Dark Gauge Forces from Proton Bremsstrahlung in Beam-Dump Data , Phys. Lett. B 731 (2014) 320–326, [ 1311.3870]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    E. M. Riordan et al., A Search for Short Lived Axions in an Electron Beam Dump Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 755

    1987

  5. [13]

    NA64 collaboration, D. B. et al., Addendum to the NA64 Proposal: search for A′ →invisible and X → e+e− decays in 2021 , CERN-SPSC-2018-004

    2021

  6. [14]

    NA48/2 collaboration, J. R. Batley et al., Search for the dark photon in π0 decays, Phys. Lett. B 746 (2015) 178–185, [ 1504.00607]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Pospelov, Secluded U(1) below the weak scale , Phys

    M. Pospelov, Secluded U(1) below the weak scale , Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 095002, [ 0811.1030]

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Alekhin et al., A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case, Rept

    S. Alekhin et al., A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79 (2016) 124201, [ 1504.04855]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Anelli et al., A facility to Search for Hidden Particles (SHiP) at the CERN SPS , 1504.04956

    SHiP collaboration, M. Anelli et al., A facility to Search for Hidden Particles (SHiP) at the CERN SPS , 1504.04956. 23

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling and S. Trojanowski, ForwArd Search ExpeRiment at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 035001, [ 1708.09389]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cheung and C

    K. Cheung and C. J. Ouseph, Sensitivities on dark photon from the forward physics experiments, JHEP 10 (2022) 196, [ 2208.04523]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Berlin, S

    A. Berlin, S. Gori, P. Schuster and N. Toro, Dark Sectors at the Fermilab SeaQuest Experiment , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 035011, [ 1804.00661]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    HPS collaboration, P. H. Adrian et al., Search for a dark photon in electroproduced e+e− pairs with the Heavy Photon Search experiment at JLab , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 091101, [1807.11530]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Doria, P

    L. Doria, P. Achenbach, M. Christmann, A. Denig and H. Merkel, Dark Matter at the Intensity Frontier: the new MESA electron accelerator facility , PoS ALPS2019 (2020) 022, [1908.07921]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Doria, P

    L. Doria, P. Achenbach, M. Christmann, A. Denig, P. G¨ ulker and H. Merkel, Search for light dark matter with the MESA accelerator , in 13th Conference on the Intersections of Particle and Nuclear Physics, 9, 2018, 1809.07168

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    D’Onofrio, O

    M. D’Onofrio, O. Fischer and Z. S. Wang, Searching for Dark Photons at the LHeC and FCC-he, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 015020, [ 1909.02312]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aaij et al., Search for A′ → µ+µ− Decays, Phys

    LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Search for A′ → µ+µ− Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 041801, [1910.06926]

    2020

  18. [27]

    CMS collaboration, Search for a narrow resonance decaying to a pair of muons in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV , [CMS-PAS-EXO-19-018]

  19. [28]

    Altmannshofer et al., The Belle II Physics Book , PTEP 2019 (2019) 123C01, [ 1808.10567]

    Belle-II collaboration, W. Altmannshofer et al., The Belle II Physics Book , PTEP 2019 (2019) 123C01, [ 1808.10567]. [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)]

    2019

  20. [29]

    Karliner, M

    M. Karliner, M. Low, J. L. Rosner and L.-T. Wang, Radiative return capabilities of a high-energy, high-luminosity e+e− collider, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 035010, [ 1503.07209]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Curtin, R

    D. Curtin, R. Essig, S. Gori and J. Shelton, Illuminating Dark Photons with High-Energy Colliders, JHEP 02 (2015) 157, [ 1412.0018]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Palmer et al., Muon collider design , Nucl

    R. Palmer et al., Muon collider design , Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 51 (1996) 61–84, [acc-phys/9604001]

    1996 arXiv

  23. [32]

    C. M. Ankenbrandt et al., Status of muon collider research and development and future plans , Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 2 (1999) 081001, [ physics/9901022]

    1999 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Schulte, The International Muon Collider Collaboration , JACoW IP AC2021(2021) 3792–3795

    Muon Collidercollaboration, D. Schulte, The International Muon Collider Collaboration , JACoW IP AC2021(2021) 3792–3795

    2021

  25. [34]

    Capdevilla, D

    R. Capdevilla, D. Curtin, Y. Kahn and G. Krnjaic, Discovering the physics of (g − 2)µ at future muon colliders , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 075028, [ 2006.16277]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Bandyopadhyay, A

    P. Bandyopadhyay, A. Karan, R. Mandal and S. Parashar, Distinguishing signatures of scalar leptoquarks at hadron and muon colliders , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 916, [ 2108.06506]. 24

    2022 arXiv

  27. [36]

    C. Sen, P. Bandyopadhyay, S. Dutta and A. KT, Displaced Higgs production in Type-III seesaw at the LHC/FCC, MATHUSLA and muon collider , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 230, [2107.12442]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Asadi, R

    P. Asadi, R. Capdevilla, C. Cesarotti and S. Homiller, Searching for leptoquarks at future muon colliders, JHEP 10 (2021) 182, [ 2104.05720]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Huang, F

    G.-y. Huang, F. S. Queiroz and W. Rodejohann, Gauged Lµ−Lτ at a muon collider , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 095005, [ 2101.04956]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Antonelli and P

    M. Antonelli and P. Raimondi, Snowmass Report: Ideas for Muon Production from Positron Beam Interaction on a Plasma Target , in Snowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi , 11, 2013, [INFN-13-22/LNF]

    2013

  31. [40]

    Antonelli, M

    M. Antonelli, M. Boscolo, R. Di Nardo and P. Raimondi, Novel proposal for a low emittance muon beam using positron beam on target , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 807 (2016) 101–107, [1509.04454]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Collamati, C

    F. Collamati, C. Curatolo, D. Lucchesi, A. Mereghetti, N. Mokhov, M. Palmer et al., Advanced assessment of beam-induced background at a muon collider , JINST 16 (2021) P11009, [2105.09116]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [42]

    D. Ally, L. Carpenter, T. Holmes, L. Lee and P. Wagenknecht, Strategies for Beam-Induced Background Reduction at Muon Colliders , in Snowmass 2021 , 3, 2022, 2203.06773

    2021 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Hosseini and M

    Y. Hosseini and M. M. Najafabadi, Unitarity constraints and collider searches for dark photons , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 015028, [ 2202.10058]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Chakrabarty, T

    N. Chakrabarty, T. Han, Z. Liu and B. Mukhopadhyaya, Radiative Return for Heavy Higgs Boson at a Muon Collider , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 015008, [ 1408.5912]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Draper, J

    P. Draper, J. Kozaczuk and S. Thomas, Precision inclusive Higgs physics at e +e− colliders with tracking detectors and without calorimetry , JHEP 09 (2020) 174, [ 1812.08289]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [46]

    T. Han, D. Liu, I. Low and X. Wang, Electroweak couplings of the Higgs boson at a multi-TeV muon collider , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 013002, [ 2008.12204]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Y. Zhu, H. Cui and M. Ruan, The Higgs →bb,cc, gg measurement at CEPC , JHEP 11 (2022) 100, [2203.01469]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Sha et al., Probing Higgs CP properties at the CEPC in the e+e− → ZH → l+l−H using optimal variables , Eur

    Q. Sha et al., Probing Higgs CP properties at the CEPC in the e+e− → ZH → l+l−H using optimal variables , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 981, [ 2203.11707]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 83, 62 (2023)]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Dasgupta, P

    A. Dasgupta, P. S. B. Dev, T. Han, R. Padhan, S. Wang and K. Xie, Searching for heavy leptophilic Z’: from lepton colliders to gravitational waves , JHEP 12 (2023) 011, [ 2308.12804]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Chen and D

    M. Chen and D. Liu, Top Yukawa coupling measurement at the muon collider , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 075020, [ 2212.11067]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Denizli, A

    H. Denizli, A. Senol and M. K¨ oksal, Probing the electromagnetic properties of the neutrinos at future lepton colliders , Phys. Lett. B 853 (2024) 138648, [ 2308.13046]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Forslund and P

    M. Forslund and P. Meade, Precision Higgs width and couplings with a high energy muon collider, JHEP 01 (2024) 182, [ 2308.02633]. 25

    2024 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Jiang, C

    R. Jiang, C. Jiang, A. Ruzi, T. Yang, Y. Ban and Q. Li, Searches for multi-Z boson productions and anomalous gauge boson couplings at a muon collider* , Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024) 103102, [2404.02613]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [54]

    P. Li, Z. Liu and K.-F. Lyu, Higgs boson width and couplings at high energy muon colliders with forward muon detection , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 073009, [ 2401.08756]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [55]

    A. K. Barik, S. K. Rai and A. Srivastava, Discovering an invisible Z’ at the muon collider , 2408.14396

    arXiv

  47. [56]

    Ruegg and M

    H. Ruegg and M. Ruiz-Altaba, The Stueckelberg field, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19 (2004) 3265–3348, [hep-th/0304245]

    2004 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Abdallah, A

    W. Abdallah, A. K. Barik, S. K. Rai and T. Samui, Search for a light Z’ at LHC in a neutrinophilic U(1) model , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 095031, [ 2106.01362]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Schael et al., Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP , Phys

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweakcollaboration, S. Schael et al., Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP , Phys. Rept. 532 (2013) 119–244, [ 1302.3415]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Aad et al., Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb −1 of pp collision data collected at √s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb −1 of pp collision data collected at √s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Lett. B 796 (2019) 68–87, [ 1903.06248]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Aaij et al., Search for Dark Photons Produced in 13 TeV pp Collisions, Phys

    LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Search for Dark Photons Produced in 13 TeV pp Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 061801, [ 1710.02867]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [61]

    ATLAS collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Search for additional heavy neutral Higgs and gauge bosons in the ditau final state produced in 36 fb −1 of pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 01 (2018) 055, [ 1709.07242]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Aaboud et al., Search for lepton-flavor violation in different-flavor, high-mass final states in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys

    ATLAS collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Search for lepton-flavor violation in different-flavor, high-mass final states in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 092008, [ 1807.06573]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [63]

    CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Search for lepton-flavor violating decays of heavy resonances and quantum black holes to e µ final states in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 04 (2018) 073, [ 1802.01122]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Aaboud et al., Search for heavy resonances decaying to a W or Z boson and a Higgs boson in the q ¯q(′)b¯b final state in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    ATLAS collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Search for heavy resonances decaying to a W or Z boson and a Higgs boson in the q ¯q(′)b¯b final state in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017) 494–515, [ 1707.06958]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [65]

    CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Search for a heavy vector resonance decaying to a Z boson and a Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 688, [2102.08198]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [66]

    CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Search for an Lµ − Lτ gauge boson using Z → 4µ events in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 792 (2019) 345–368, [1808.03684]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [67]

    ATLAS collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Search for Higgs boson decays to beyond-the-Standard-Model light bosons in four-lepton events with the ATLAS detector at 26 √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 06 (2018) 166, [ 1802.03388]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Aad et al., Search for diboson resonances in hadronic final states in 139 fb −1 of pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , JHEP 09 (2019) 091, [1906.08589]

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for diboson resonances in hadronic final states in 139 fb −1 of pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , JHEP 09 (2019) 091, [1906.08589]. [Erratum: JHEP 06, 042 (2020)]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [69]

    CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., A multi-dimensional search for new heavy resonances decaying to boosted WW, WZ, or ZZ boson pairs in the dijet final state at 13 TeV , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 237, [ 1906.05977]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [70]

    D0 collaboration, V. M. Abazov et al., Search for a Heavy Neutral Gauge Boson in the Dielectron Channel with 5.4 f b−1 of p¯p Collisions at √s = 1.96 TeV , Phys. Lett. B 695 (2011) 88–94, [1008.2023]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [71]

    BaBar collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Search for a Dark Photon in e+e− Collisions at BaBar , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 201801, [ 1406.2980]

    2014 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond , JHEP 06 (2011) 128, [ 1106.0522]

    2011 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Costantini, F

    A. Costantini, F. De Lillo, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, O. Mattelaer, R. Ruiz et al., Vector boson fusion at multi-TeV muon colliders , JHEP 09 (2020) 080, [ 2005.10289]

    2020 arXiv

  65. [74]

    de Favereau, C

    DELPHES 3collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens et al., DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP 02 (2014) 057, [ 1307.6346]

    2014 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 , SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 , SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8, [ 2203.11601]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Chiesa, F

    M. Chiesa, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, B. Mele, F. Piccinini and X. Zhao, Measuring the quartic Higgs self-coupling at a multi-TeV muon collider, JHEP 09 (2020) 098, [ 2003.13628]

    2020 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Boronat, J

    M. Boronat, J. Fuster, I. Garcia, E. Ros and M. Vos, A robust jet reconstruction algorithm for high-energy lepton colliders , Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 95–99, [ 1404.4294]

    2015 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Boronat, J

    M. Boronat, J. Fuster, I. Garcia, P. Roloff, R. Simoniello and M. Vos, Jet reconstruction at high-energy electron–positron colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 144, [ 1607.05039]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual , Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, [1111.6097]

    2012 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Dasgupta, K

    M. Dasgupta, K. Khelifa-Kerfa, S. Marzani and M. Spannowsky, On jet mass distributions in Z+jet and dijet processes at the LHC , JHEP 10 (2012) 126, [ 1207.1640]

    2012 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics , Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, [ 1007.1727]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)]. 27

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.